Questions of Ethics

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by always2late

This is actually a pretty "famous" philosophical debate....countless papers have been written changing the variables to see if that would change the outcome, for example, the five are criminals the one is not. Or, the one is young where the five are old. I have to confess I've never debated the question when the potential victims were on an even playing field.

I don't know that I would flip the switch...because I don't think I have a right to decide who will live and who will die. I would leave it to fate, or destiny, or God, or whatever higher power one believes in. Now, I am gonna call myself out and say my logic is flawed because if it were only one person on the track and I could flip the switch and save them...I would. And in that way I WOULD be deciding whether they live or die. Sigh...just call my logic fickle I guess.

So, let's say that it's not flipping a switch, instead it's running into a burning building. Or, even easier, calling the fire department to send someone to run into the burning building. Would you also leave that to fate, destiny or some divine being or another? Because the logic you appear to be using is that if some divine being wants you to live then you live and if some divine being wants you to die then you die. Either way it's no business of yours if you pass me by on the street and I'm bleeding to death, it appears you would be just as likely to leave that person to their 'fate' as you would to intervene and that your choice one way or another would be unpredictable (e.g. there is no 'rule' that you're operating under).

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

So, let's say that it's not flipping a switch, instead it's running into a burning building. Or, even easier, calling the fire department to send someone to run into the burning building. Would you also leave that to fate, destiny or some divine being or another? Because the logic you appear to be using is that if some divine being wants you to live then you live and if some divine being wants you to die then you die. Either way it's no business of yours if you pass me by on the street and I'm bleeding to death, it appears you would be just as likely to leave that person to their 'fate' as you would to intervene and that your choice one way or another would be unpredictable (e.g. there is no 'rule' that you're operating under).

[meant to multi quote with Always2Late, but failed]

I think the drowning guy joke bears on this. I'll synopsize it for anyone who hasn't heard it.

Guy drowning, another guy comes along in a boat and tries to save him, but the drowning guy says, No, the Lord will save me. This happens two more times: guys in boats, but the drowning guy says No, the Lord will save me.
Finally, the guy drowns and goes to Heaven and there's the Lord. Guy says, Lord, why didn't you save me? And the Lord says, "Hey, I sent three boats!"

One may be the means of Fate--whatever one does. How then does one "decide"... or does one?

[Semantics]

No moral arithmetic when it comes to people's lives. I wouldn't flip the switch.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Semantics

No moral arithmetic when it comes to people's lives. I wouldn't flip the switch.

But isn't that as much a choice as flipping the switch? Barring some change in the laws of physics, *someone* is going to die. The question is whether we would choose for five people to die or one person to die. No matter what choice we make, someone dies though. So flipping the switch is a choice to take a positive action resulting in the death of one person and not flipping the switch is a choice to take a negative (i.e. a null action) action resulting in the deaths of five people.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I would flip the switch to save the 5 people. Then I would have to go talk with a few close friends about what I did.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

I would take this even one step further:

"It is commonly supposed that it is entirely exemplary to adopt the moral teachings of one's own religion without question, because--to put it simply--it is the word of God (as interpreted, always, by the specialists to whom one has delegated authority). I am urging, on the contrary, that anybody who professes that a particular point of moral conviction is not discussable, not debatable, not negotiable, simply because it is the word of God, or because the Bible says so, or because "that is what all Muslims [Hindus, Sikhs ...] believe, and I am a Muslim [Hindu, Sikh...], should be seen to be making it impossible for the rest of us to take their views seriously, excusing themselves from the moral conversation, inadvertently acknowledging that their own views are not conscientiously maintained and deserve no further hearing.

The argument for this is straightforward. Suppose I have a friend, Fred, who is (in my carefully considered opinion) always right. If I tell you I'm against stem-cell research because "my friend Fred says it's wrong and that's all there is to it," you will just look at me as if I was missing the point of the discussion. This is supposed to be a consideration of reasons, and I have not given you a reason that I in good faith could expect you to appreciate. Suppose you believe that stem-cell research is wrong because that is what God has told you. Even if indeed exist and has, personally, told you that stem-cell research is wrong--you cannot reasonably expect others who do not share your faith or experience to accept this as a reason. You are being unreasonable in taking your stand. The fact that your faith is so strong that you cannot do otherwise just shows (if you really can't) that you are disabled for moral persuasion, a sort of robotic slave to a meme that you are unable to evaluate. And if you reply that you can but you won't consider reasons for and against your conviction (because it is God's word, and it would sacrilegious even to consider whether it might be in error), you avow your willful refusal to abide by the minimal conditions of rational discussion. Either way, your declarations of your deeply held views are posturings that are out of place, part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we others will just have to work around you as best we can." (Daniel Dennett)

My view has become even more pessimistic than Dennett's.

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

While we've all had all this brain time to think about it, the 5 have died because we were so busy trying to make up our collective minds.

I'm a do'er, it is natural and normal to act, even if my life is the one sacrificed. It is not hero syndrome it is basic human compassion.
Some one or several are going to die, the less blood spilled the better.